Date: October 31, 2005

To: Craig Schnell, Ph.D.
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
From: Jeffery W. Gerst, Ph.D.

Re:Technology Fee Advisory Committee Recommendations

The Technology Fee Advisory Committee met in the Group Decision Center on Thursday, October 27, 2005, to discuss ten Tech Fee Action Plans. One hundred ten thousand dollars was potentially available to be distributed. The Action Plans sought $174,592.00 in support.

The Committee voted to recommend setting aside $20,000.00 of the $110,000.00 in order to support the acquisition of the Blackboard Academic Suite consisting of a learning management system, a community system and a content system.

The Technology Fee Advisory Committee members unanimously recommended purchasing the Academic Suite during its meeting of October 13, 2005 (Electronic mail, Date: Fri. 14 Oct 2005,
Subject: TFAC Recommendation: Blackboard Academic Suite). Unspent Technology Fee Project funds from ITS of $131,151.83 have been transferred back to the Tech Fee Program account. The estimated cost for acquisition and implementation the Academic Suite is $152,405.00.

Committee members reviewed, discussed and ranked the Action Plans. The Committee recommends that four plans (Table 1.) be supported in this round of project submittals.

Table 1. Action Plans recommended for funding at the October 27, 2005 meeting of the Technology Fee Advisory Committee meeting.

Log #	Project Director(s)	Project Title	Recommended Award
0511	Herbert Snyder, Accounting & Information Systems	ACL Software Problem Set and Training	$1,300.00
0516	James Ross, Information Technology Services	Responsible Printing Initiative Supplementary Budget Request	$16,000.00
0514	Alan Denton, Physics	Computer Cluster for Computational Physics Laboratory	$12,690.00
0519	Dale Sullivan and Kevin Brooks, English	Wireless Lab for Hybrid Classes	$29,259.00
Total	$59,249.00

Our actions recommend the expenditure of $59,249.00 (plus $20,000 for reserve) and leaves approximately $30,751.00 available to go toward the spring semester request for Action Plans.

The funding of "computer clusters" by Technology Fee funds was brought into focus during the Committee's deliberations.

• Does the addition of another computer cluster represent an innovative use of fund dollars?
• Will computer clusters, as they exist today, be considered October 31, 2005 essential informational technology service assets in the future?
• Would a more distributed printing system decrease the student use of computer clusters?

The increasing availability of wireless communication, the high percent (greater than 90%) of on-campus student residents owning computers, and the improving capabilities of hand-held devices may alter our assessment of computing needs. Resolution of the computer cluster questions will likely require a broad based analysis. The Technology Fee Advisory Committee may be able to assist.